What is DC Entertainment doing? What is their plan? - Part 1

[Docker2.0]

Actually GR comes out in like 4-5 months in February. Part of me hopes it bombs so it can go back to Marvel.............and I may be getting my wish but who knows. Sony may have actually learned their lesson.

 

[akfj]

Put it this way: If WB had Marvel and Disney had DC, do you think we'd be having this discussion? Heck no! We'd probably have a JLA film by now, working on a sequel as well as the Green Arrow film that should/could have been made for less than $50M but whatever.

It couldn't come down to just a matter of switching the companies, though. That's too simple. The same exact situations and histories regarding each company would have to be the same, too. Meaning, Marvel would have had to have been bought by WB over 20 years ago with no film studio of its own in existence, and DC would have had its own film studio in place after years of contracting their heroes out to other film companies. Actually, we probably wouldn't have seen a JLA movie in its proper popular form because Superman and Batman would have been contracted out to other studios. Marvel is lucky they don't need Spider-Man and Wolverine/X-Men to make an Avengers movie in that case.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

A 'DC Studios' is never going to happen because at the end of the day it's still going to be big brother Warner Bros who will ultimately decide what's in the best interest for them. I don't think WB don't care, they just don't have to rely on superheroes to make a successful film, they've got their hands in many jars, conversely Marvel is solely about superheroes - that's it. As has been mentioned a million times if the popularity of superheroes suddenly died tomorrow Marvel Studios would cease to exist, WB would continue on without batting an eyelid.

I never said WB is dependent on superhero films. The point is DCE has been made to help characters see the limelight in print and on the big and small screen. However, as long as there is only one studio making movies there will never be the kind of variety and success that is seen at Marvel with The Avengers franchise, Sony with Spider-Man or Fox with X-Men.

 

[Airwings]

You are right! I don't understand why they are yet trying with Superman. Same thing all over again. The previous one wasn't well-recieved either.
WB can't take in the fact that they have had their Superman successes already. Decades ago, but still. Supes should not have been touched after Reeve. At least not until the other DC heroes have been tested. The money they put on Superman Returns by Bryan Singer could easily have been used for another character. Same thing now with Zac Snyder and Man of Steel.
The question is: what could have been done instead of SR? Either Wonder Woman or The Flash, in my opinion. Maybe WW because she is the biggest of these two.
I don't think the world was quite ready for Lantern or Aqua back then.
To replace MoS? Hard to say, but that depends on which one they made five years ago. I can only say it should not be the same hero. But if this year's GL was Flash instead, then the replacement for MoS would have turned out to be Green Lantern.

But a superhero film 2006 should not have been with Singer involved. And the one to come out 2013 should happen without Snyder. Maybe even the same with Martin Campbell? These heroes need other directors, I think.
And after 2013, we could expect Aquaman as the next big blockbuster... and even Hawkman further down the line.

But this would only have happened in a perfect world.
​

This would piss off a lot of people, but WB could actually have stayed away from Batman too. I love the Nolan films, but we could have been given something else instead. It's possible you know.
It may not have got any sequels, perhaps just one, but I doubt very much a trilogy. I am thinking about Green Arrow.
What if WB had made a Green Arrow adaption 2005, and not Batman? Directed by Aronofsky, even that my friends!

If we look back at my post I quote here, Wonder Woman would have come out 2006.
Then maybe, just maybe, a Green Arrow sequel 2008 or 2009.
The second Wonder Woman 2010, but with the same actress and not a reboot.
The first Flash film this year (2011).
A Green Lantern 2013.
Sequels for these two heroes, while we at the same time would go to Atlantis. Films would come out more often now, 1-2 per year.
Then reboots of Superman and Batman (first films since Reeve and Clooney played these characters)

Each of the films should try to be on its own, without hinting about other heroes.
But we could have team-ups further down the line.
Green Arrow & Green Lantern, then Batman vs Superman World's Finest, then Trinity, and finally Justice League. By now, we would have reached 2020-22.

This would have been the best way to go - absolutely - without a doubt!!!!!!

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

What would have happened if Green Arrow got made over Batman? Nothing. People would of thought of him as this Batman ripoff with none of the rogues.

 

[Airwings]

What would have happened if Green Arrow got made over Batman? Nothing. People would of thought of him as this Batman ripoff with none of the rogues.

Depends. If he was treated with a realistic style like Batman was in BB (replace the mountains with the island), then he would have felt more fresh and modern than "Batman & Robin" (1997).
Since a GA adaption 2005 would be the first DC hero in the new era of superhero films (after X-Men and Spider-Man laid the ground), it would feel slightly distant to Batman. The latter was even a target for mockery after the Shumacher films.
GA wouldn't require lots of money to be made. It could just be Warner Bros' testing the water after several years without anything in that genre for them. After a few Harry Potter successes, they could feel strong enough to take a risk with a not so expensive film.
And as soon as GA had came out, they could move along with that Wonder Woman project (which was already waiting to begin).

 

[jmc]

Yeah but Disney would thrive as well. I understand what you are saying about WB but Disney is in the exact same situation and they are taking full advantage of the superhero boom. I know they bought Marvel studios out but they did not hinder them at all. Matter of fact, you can see them really crank out the Marvel related characters a lot more, which I didn't think was possible given how many movies Marvel puts out a year. Noone is blaming DCE because quite honestly, it's only so much they can do without WB getting to involved but the "WB has so much more they can do besides superheroes" is just an excuse. They just seem to put everything in Batman, meaning they do have an interest in superheroes but just that one. If they are going to put everything in Batman, I suggest a Brave and the Bold approach, let him team up with other heroes, even in film so they can branch off. This way a JLA movie doesn't have to be done right now, but it could surely help a Flash or even WW get off the ground. By the time a JLA movie gets made,the genre would have passed DC/WB by.

I don't get the point you're trying to make of course Disney will live on, but at the end of the day if superheroes cease to become a profitable commodity Marvel Studios will likely close. And the situation between WB and Disney are nowhere near the same .

 

[chiefchirpa]

I should have been clearer. Thor indeed cracked 400 million - it was Cap that didn't. Plus FF looks like it will get another shot and it made less than Cap. Isn't GR getting a sequel too - it didn't even crack 200 million. None of these from Thor to GR would have had a shot at a sequel if they had been made by WB.

It's two different worlds WB vs Marvel. It's frustrating for DC fans but it is what it is.

I am not sure that aside from Batman any DC superhero can deliver the numbers WB wants.

JL - now that is a different story. It could do 600 million easily. it's why I'm so hot on WB doing a JL series along with the rebooted Batman.

It's WB vs Disney, DC vs Marvel now. Marvel is Disney superhero business, DC is WB superhero business. It's just so happen Marvel movie biz is a bit more independent than DC because their ventures have been successful so far.

And how can you say gross money intake is the predictor whether sequel is going to be made or not? You also have to see the budget to make the movie too and subtract this amount from the gross money intake. Cap budget is $140 mil, GR is much less. Unlike GL, they make money because the resulting amount is still positive.

 

[akfj]

It's WB vs Disney, DC vs Marvel now. Marvel is Disney superhero business, DC is WB superhero business. It's just so happen Marvel movie biz is a bit more independent than DC because their ventures have been successful so far.

No, it's more like WB with the rights to DC characters vs. Marvel Studios with limited Disney involvement vs. Sony with the rights to Marvel characters vs. Fox with the rights to Marvel characters and so on. It's not just DC vs. Marvel, it's more complicated.

 

[kedrell]

I think WB doesn't place much value in it's DC properties unless they can do mage-numbersa like Batman or Ironman. 400 million isn't good enough for them and I am not sure 500 million would be.

The problem is there are maybe only 3 A list solo franchises. Batman, Spiderman and Ironman. It's not easy to crack the 600 million mark. It may be that no other superhero film aside from these 3 can make the mega-numbers. Superman and GL proved not to be A list franchises and it is possible there won't be any others among the yet as untried DC characters. 600 mil is a steep climb.

Marvel has no problem with this. They value the A and B list franchises. Thor is getting sequels and Cap is too and it didn't even crack 400 million. If it were DC these two wouldn't be getting sequels.

Batman Begins wasn't a mega-blockbuster either($372M WW) yet WB did choose to go forward with a sequel.

 

[OsGom]

A little history.

Beginning with the success of Blade and the Xmen films, at a point when Marvel Entertainment was basically going belly up, Marvel gambled and invested their earning from these films, a huge loan and a complete reorganization to launch Marvel Studios (2005 I think). It was a huge risk and they did it without the safety net of a WB or a Disney at the time. The intent from the beginning was to establish their own brand in films and launch an interwoven cinematic Marvel Universe. Avi Arad, love him or hate him, had a coherent vision and the balls to make it happen. It was a long road and involved getting the rights to various properties that had previously been bought out and fighting off a 5 billion dollar law suit. When IM went into production, Marvel's future was entirely dependent on the success of that film. Luckily it all paid off and Marvel was able to move on to movie success and eventual ownership under Disney.

DC on the otherhand has had the benefit (or misfortune) of being owned by WB since 1989. Hence where Marvel was forced to tough it out through various finacial hardships, DC has had the luxury of being "protected by WB". However, protection has it's price and has cost DC creative control over their comicbook properties. WB historically has been very inconsistant in developing DC properties. Sinking the first Batman franchise and bankrolling atrocities like Jonah Hex and Catwoman but failing to develop a successful screen franchises for WW and Superman. Nolan and the new Batman franchise is HUGE but it isn't doing anything for other DC properties. I would argue that the Nolanverse is so far removed from the DCU, that it's success actually hurts the prospect of adapting other characters. I believe we are already seeing the "darker and grittier" approach taken in the Nolanverse applied to MoS. An approach I am not sure is going to be effective for the character.

I don't necessarily believe that WB/DC goal should be to emulate the Marvel Studios model, despite the fanboy's expectations. I do think that they should be looking at taking more risks with characters that aren't Batman in order to establish definitive identity for DC Entertainment at the box office. Sure GL was a BIG let down. I haven't seen it yet but from what I've read, filmmakers played it safe storywise in favor of big special effects. Let's hope they learn from their mistakes and still have the guts to make their next endeavor something amazing.

 

[chiefchirpa]

No, it's more like WB with the rights to DC characters vs. Marvel Studios with limited Disney involvement vs. Sony with the rights to Marvel characters vs. Fox with the rights to Marvel characters and so on. It's not just DC vs. Marvel, it's more complicated.

It's best to leave out non-Marvel studios Marvel films out of the equation because Marvel itself has no power whether to stop or continue more of those films whose rights retained by Fox, Sony or others. Marvel controlled film are films done by Marvel Studios or if it may so, by Disney. Making films like Ghost Rider and X-Men are not for Marvel to decide.

I think it's not complicated. Yeah it's complicated and sucks for Disney to lose out big properties like X-Men and Spider-Man but Marvel Studios still retain a large amount of characters movie rights. At the end, the comparison will be between WB and their DC films done by Legendary/New Line Cinema/etc and Disney with their Marvel films done by Marvel Studios. Sony will strut along with Spider-Man and Fox with X-Men characters but these movies will be constant and ho-hum, since both studios will look to retain the "hostaged" properties forever.

 

[Micromind]

Right now, WB is the one that invites and approves scripts based on DC characters, DC has no control over major aspects of movie making like creating an original draft / story, editing out elements that are not close to comics etc.


If DC actually gets involved in the movie making business, then there will be some improvement looking at some of the recent WB / DC movies that are not produced / Directed by Nolan such as Jonah Hex, Green Lantern I feel that DC was not involved since the initial stages.

 

[Docker2.0]

I never said WB is dependent on superhero films. The point is DCE has been made to help characters see the limelight in print and on the big and small screen. However, as long as there is only one studio making movies there will never be the kind of variety and success that is seen at Marvel with The Avengers franchise, Sony with Spider-Man or Fox with X-Men.

Well see that's the thing. WB owned CW or parts of it and they gave us Smallville. Now that Disney owns Marvel, you are looking at 4 Marvel tv shows to be released within the next 2 years. That's the difference between WB and Disney. Disney plans full well to use all of Marvel's characters to the best of their abilities while WB is just being the WB. Every superhero can't be on the big screen but some are tailor made for tv. Heck Nightwing, Green Arrow, and to a degree Teen Titans would be perfect for the CW, they'd suck but at least it can be said we are trying. Disney plans to put the Hulk and Jessica Jones on ABC(which I doubt that either would get through a full season but still)and plan to put Cloak and Dagger as well as Mockingbird on ABC Family. WB needs to take a page out of Disney book and open up a little.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Depends. If he was treated with a realistic style like Batman was in BB (replace the mountains with the island), then he would have felt more fresh and modern than "Batman & Robin" (1997).
Since a GA adaption 2005 would be the first DC hero in the new era of superhero films (after X-Men and Spider-Man laid the ground), it would feel slightly distant to Batman. The latter was even a target for mockery after the Shumacher films.
GA wouldn't require lots of money to be made. It could just be Warner Bros' testing the water after several years without anything in that genre for them. After a few Harry Potter successes, they could feel strong enough to take a risk with a not so expensive film.
And as soon as GA had came out, they could move along with that Wonder Woman project (which was already waiting to begin).

Yeah, but Batman 5/reboot/requel was in development before Green Arrow because Batman is just a plain better character. Batman isn't a good a good character purely in of himself, it is the character and his relationship to Gotham, supporting characters and villains. Batman Begins wasn't successful because it was realistic, it was successful because it showed a good relationship between R'as and Bruce, and Bruce's coping with the fear of not living up to his parents name. Green Arrow has some of that, but all to a lesser degree.

 

[Airwings]

Yeah, but Batman 5/reboot/requel was in development before Green Arrow because Batman is just a plain better character. Batman isn't a good a good character purely in of himself, it is the character and his relationship to Gotham, supporting characters and villains. Batman Begins wasn't successful because it was realistic, it was successful because it showed a good relationship between R'as and Bruce, and Bruce's coping with the fear of not living up to his parents name. Green Arrow has some of that, but all to a lesser degree.

Who knows how they would have written the character Green Arrow/Oliver Queen for the film?

 

[jmc]

Well see that's the thing. WB owned CW or parts of it and they gave us Smallville. Now that Disney owns Marvel, you are looking at 4 Marvel tv shows to be released within the next 2 years. That's the difference between WB and Disney. Disney plans full well to use all of Marvel's characters to the best of their abilities while WB is just being the WB. Every superhero can't be on the big screen but some are tailor made for tv. Heck Nightwing, Green Arrow, and to a degree Teen Titans would be perfect for the CW, they'd suck but at least it can be said we are trying. Disney plans to put the Hulk and Jessica Jones on ABC(which I doubt that either would get through a full season but still)and plan to put Cloak and Dagger as well as Mockingbird on ABC Family. WB needs to take a page out of Disney book and open up a little.

Why do WB have to do anything of the sort? Disney trying out superheroes is more down to them trying to remove the 'Disney is for girls' tag they inadvertently placed upon themselves a few years back, the same stigma isn't around WB.

 

[Rocketman]

Guys, this isn't so hard. WB/DC will do something. A four year plan would be easy.

2013: Man of Steel
2014: Batman Reboot
2014: The Flash
2015: WORLD'S FINEST
2015: Wonder Woman
2016: Green Lantern Reboot
2017: JUSTICE LEAGUE

Just four years. That's all it takes.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

For most studios, sure, but WB's a completely different animal. They're right up there with Fox in terms of CBM production procrastination.

 

[KRIM]

Guys, this isn't so hard. WB/DC will do something. A four year plan would be easy.

2013: Man of Steel
2014: Batman Reboot
2014: The Flash
2015: WORLD'S FINEST
2015: Wonder Woman
2016: Green Lantern Reboot
2017: JUSTICE LEAGUE

Just four years. That's all it takes.

That easy? So WB are sitting on their laurels of potential billions (in 4 years!) out of ignorance and not difficulty. Well, thank heavens to SHH's very own Rocketman for the much needed rescue! Someone get this guy to WB's offices!

 

[Docker2.0]

Why do WB have to do anything of the sort? Disney trying out superheroes is more down to them trying to remove the 'Disney is for girls' tag they inadvertently placed upon themselves a few years back, the same stigma isn't around WB.

Wow. So Disney is doing it to shake their girly image while WB won't do it because they have bigger things to do. If that's not a double standard I don't know what is!

 

[Rocketman]

That easy? So WB are sitting on their laurels of potential billions (in 4 years!) out of ignorance and not difficulty. Well, thank heavens to SHH's very own Rocketman for the much needed rescue! Someone get this guy to WB's offices!

I detect sarcasm, but yes, it really is that easy.

Marvel did it.

Iron Man - 2008
The Incredible Hulk - 2008
Iron Man 2 - 2010
Thor - 2011
Captain America - 2011
The Avengers - 2012

6 movies in 4 years, and they had a 2-year gap between 2008 and 2010.

DC could easily do 7 movies in 4 years. Man of Steel is already in production, so at this point, they only need to worry about 6 films.

Hire a team of people who know how to plan collaborative projects, like Bruce Timm and Paul Dini.

No offense to you, KRIM (sincerely), but it just takes 5 minutes for a DC/WB executive to skim over a post like this and a decent plan could be in formation. Unfortunately for us, studio heads tend to worry about dollar signs as opposed to the proper way to get things done, like fans such as you and me demand.

You make it sound like I'm some entitled, high-horse poster who thinks that it should be my way or the highway, when really, this is a damn good way to plan the DC film universe. It's not my fault that WB/DC has no clue what the hell they're doing. Green Lantern proved that.

 

[KRIM]

I detect sarcasm, but yes, it really is that easy.

Marvel did it.

Iron Man - 2008
The Incredible Hulk - 2008
Iron Man 2 - 2010
Thor - 2011
Captain America - 2011
The Avengers - 2012

6 movies in 4 years, and they had a 2-year gap between 2008 and 2010.

Yes, Marvel is responsible for 6 movies in 4 years. WB is responsible for dozens. That is the advantage Marvel has. Less on their plate.

DC could easily do 7 movies in 4 years. Man of Steel is already in production, so at this point, they only need to worry about 6 films.

DC can't do anything as it is in WB's court.

Hire a team of people who know how to plan collaborative projects, like Bruce Timm and Paul Dini.

Easier said than done. All it takes is one (or more) misfire, and that long plan has effectively been tarnished.

No offense to you, KRIM (sincerely), but it just takes 5 minutes for a DC/WB executive to skim over a post like this and a decent plan could be in formation. Unfortunately for us, studio heads tend to worry about dollar signs as opposed to the proper way to get things done, like fans such as you and me demand.

You make it sound like I'm some entitled, high-horse poster who thinks that it should be my way or the highway, when really, this is a damn good way to plan the DC film universe. It's not my fault that WB/DC has no clue what the hell they're doing. Green Lantern proved that.

I want my DC films just as much as any other fan. But I'm also sensible enough to know that it's not my billions of dollars being put at steak for such a risky endeavor.

WB should be blamed partly for GL's failure, but at the end of the day they just write checks -- and they provided more than enough for a successful film. Ultimately Campbell and co. failed us. Had it succeeded I have no question we'd be knee deep in rumors concerning other flagship characters. Unfortunately, WB being so graceful with their funds for GL blew up in their face. Can you blame them for sulking back in their shell?

Marvel managed to do what they did because those films are literally the only films they can make. That and they had a great head start with Iron Man. You think Avengers would be here had it failed, along with Hulk and the others? WB "failed" with Supes and GL -- that's why they're back to the drawing board. You're not going to see progress from them until they secure another healthy franchise. That's simply common sense.

 

[HighFivingMF]

Hopefully Man of Steel kicks that off.

 

[jmc]

Wow. So Disney is doing it to shake their girly image while WB won't do it because they have bigger things to do. If that's not a double standard I don't know what is!

What double standard? Disney needed to latch onto something that skewed to a more male market due to their own stupidity in promoting merchandise that was mostly for girls for the past 15 years, and superheroes/comics was a good gamble. WB have been dishing out action movies for the last 30 odd years with and without superheroes, they haven't needed to rely on them and they won't need to rely on them when they're no longer profitable. Who's to say in 5 years time Disney won't start putting tighter reigns on Marvel Studios? It's all sunny for the most part now but when something goes wrong, and law of averages says it will, the House of Mouse could easily start becoming more cautious like WB are. Suddenly all those 'plans' are out the window. I hear all this talk about Avengers 2 and further solo films featuring characters most people have never heard of. Call me skeptical that all that is going to go to plan with little involvement from Disney.